Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

On Moral Progress In A Materialist World

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A commenter in my last post gave a very nice summary of the current state of thinking about moral progress among matrialists.  Obviously, by definition, materialists cannot point to a transcendent moral code by which to measure moral progress.  Indeed, it is difficult for them to account for moral progress at all because if materialism is correct, the “is” in a society defines the “ought.”  The commenter took a stab at it nevertheless and came up with this: 

In terms of progress: I would say that progress is measured by the increase or decrease of the sphere of human recognition. We today recognize the humanity of African-Americans — a recognition that was denied to their ancestors. It is the contrast between the present and the past, not between the present and an imagined future, that indicates whether or not progress has occurred.  Although such recognition still has some ways to go, as measures go, it’s not a bad one.

In response I would like to pose two questions:

1.  On what basis do you say that the recognition of the humanity of African-Americans is “progress” unless you have held up the previous nonrecognition and the present recognition to a code and deterermined the former was bad (i.e., did not meet the code) and the latter is good (i.e., does meet the code)?  In other words, when you say we have “progressed” it is just another way of saying that the previous state of affairs was bad and the present state of affairs is good.  But how can you know this unless there is a code that transcends time and place by which both states of affairs can be measured.  Certainly to say that things were previously one way and now they are another is not the same as saying there has been progress.  Change is not the same as progress. 

 2.  Increasingly in our society pornography is viewed as an affirmatively good thing.  Perhaps that is even the majority view today, so let us assume for the sake of argument that the majority of people in America think pornography is a good thing.  Does the fact that the majority of people believe pornography is a good thing in fact make the exploitation and objectification of women for the sexual gratification of men good?  Would you say that there has been moral progress because now our society recognizes that the exploitation and objectification of women for the sexual gratification of men is good wheras before we believed that was bad?

Comments
one absolute moral code is that whatever god says is right, but that is what secularists are most afraid of and criticise religous people for because what happens when David Koresh tells people he is hearding god tell him to kill someone?Collin
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
BarryA: "Demanding justification for self-evident axiomatic first principles is a sign of moral failing." But the point is: not everyone agrees on what first principles are, in fact, self-evident. How can a person have a moral failing when he does not, at rock bottom, agree that your axiom is an axiom?mike1962
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
Jason: "The fact of moral disagreement is not evidence that no moral reality exists, it is only evidence of disagreement." I didn't assert that moral disagreement is evidence that no moral reality exists. But I do assert that moral disagreement is evidence that no direct objective standard exists available to humans generally. "Nature points in its design to the same moral reality that all of the great moral teachers have seen an understood to varying degrees of clarity." On what basis are you deciding that a teacher is "great?" Popularity? Unpopularity? An inner spiritual witness? "Do you really think it is a coincidence that all the great moral teachers (by the light of their own cultures) have tended to be broadly in agreement ?" That's a pretty vague statement, but would agree that most people down thru the ages would agree that life and abundance is somehow "good", and suffering and death is generally "evil", at least for ourselves. At any rate, I stated previously that it's the moral particulars that differ. And the particulars seem to matter a lot to most people. To what natural law, and not merely a private feeling, can you conclusively point to that indicates to us that, say, first trimester abortion is "evil?" "Christian" America is pretty much equally divided on this particular (in, in my opinion, important) detail of morality.mike1962
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT
I don't think our morality is necessarily transcendent. It could derive from our own experiential perception of what harms us or helps us. If we are killed or mugged,that harms us, so its bad. If we are in trouble and someone comes to the rescue, its good. Where it may become transcendent, is in our recognition that if we don't want "harm" to be done to us, it would behoove us not to cause "harm" to other people. Our ability to feel empathy has a lot to do with whether or not we infllict "harm" upon others. Or get upset if others inflict "harm" upon others. During holocaust many Germans felt no empathy for Jews. This could be because the neuronal pathways responsible for empathy didn't develop in their brains (and btw, how the hell do neuronal pathways become a feeling of empathy?), or more likely, those empathy pathways were derailed by social mechanisms, such as "Jews are not like us. We will never be Jews. Jews are scary non-people, and if we don't do it to them, they will do it to us, and that would suck, man" I, myself, though normally an empathetic person, do not feel empathy in all contexts. Ex: killing cockroaches. But I could never kill a dog, my empathy mechanisms would spring up full force, causing me immense suffering. Another possibly transcendent aspect of morality is guilt. If we cause "harm" to others, despite empathy, then we might feel a type of pain called "guilt". Again, some might claim that it is just a neuronal pathway activated when we do onto others what we don't want to be done to ourselves, but again, how do neurons signalling to each other turn into any type of emotions? P.S. StephenB "Moses" post was hilarious. And I do not consider adultery immoral, even though it causes "harm" to one person, because that "harm" is illusory, not real, like losing a finger, or money. P.P.S. Porn exploits women??? Women like to have sex too, you know, and we all objectify other people, if we don't know them too well. Hence prejudice and stereotyping. My only objection to porn is close-ups of body fluids. Gross.Anna
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
Jason Rennie, "Actually the answer to the question is, no it was not evil. There is quite a bit of background to be gone into to understand the circumstances" Interesting. I don't believe in some phantom objectivity, and yet I think genocide is always wrong. You do believe in objective morality and think mass slaughter is always wrong -- except when it's right! Clearly your principled defense of slaughter beats my wishy-washy abhorrence of same. As I read somewhere else (thanks E!), When they came for the Assyrians, i said nothing for i was not an Assyrian. Who's the relativist here?getawitness
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
getawitness writes: "BarryA, you still have not responded to my contention [37] that your syllogism depends on an equivocation. Just a gentle reminder." No it does not. I define the term "truly evil" and then I use it in exactly the same sense in both the major and minor premises. It is you who is trying to obfuscate by suggesting I am using them in a different sense.BarryA
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
This is from a book review in First Things here: http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6047&var_recherche=aristotle "Spaemann notes that Aristotle “thought that anyone who said one might kill one’s mother needed correction, not argument.” Similarly, to see the personal dignity of our fellow human beings as up for grabs, as a question whose answer might go in various directions, is to need correction more than argument. To offer justification for what should be axiomatic may be the necessary work of moral theory, but it is also, as Spaemann understands, a sign of moral failing." I like that: Demanding justification for self-evident axiomatic first principles is a sign of moral failing. I could not agree more.BarryA
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
Clumsy Brute [52], "So then you do not believe in an OBJECTIVE moral law." I don't believe in things I find incoherent. On the other hand, I don't exactly disbelieve them either, since I think disbelieving would posit a kind of minimal coherence to the principle. Here's the thing: our notion of objectivity is itself historically contingent. "I think that “whole new way of reading the Bible” emerged with Christ and his apostles. Which explains why the people mostly responsible for the abolition of slavery were Christians." There were Christians on both sides: plenty quoted the Bible (New Testament too) to support slavery. That's why virtually all of the major Protestant denominations (Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists) split at the time. BarryA, you still have not responded to my contention [37] that your syllogism depends on an equivocation. Just a gentle reminder. mike1962 [69] you respond to BarryA in part, "Let me ask you a question: was it an evil thing for Yahweh to send the Assyrian army to inflict a slaughter on Israel, esp given that a good many innocent children would have been murdered, raped, and otherwise mistreated?" An excellent question! Wasn't it Kierkegaard who asked a similar question about Abraham and Isaac? That is, if the angel had not stayed the father's hand, it would have been right for Abraham to kill Isaac? If I recall, his answer was that God's command trumps what we know "in our hearts," therefore what is self-evidently evil is not so if God commands it. (It's been about twenty years since I read Kierkegaard, so forgive me if I'm misrepresented him in any way.) So from that perspective, either God is no respecter of moral law or (as I prefer) moral law is not, in fact, objective.getawitness
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
"I am quite familiar with the Natural Law tradition, but inevitably (as in all philosophical views) one runs into subjective brick walls." I think this is mistaken. It seems akin to saying that, "Because Johnny struggles with his times tables, this means that all mathematics is hopelessly subjective and there is no right answer". But that is obviously silly, yet it is a common enough argument in moral discussion. The fact of moral disagreement is not evidence that no moral reality exists, it is only evidence of disagreement. "I agree that nature points to design, but I disagree that nature alone can point to any particular morality. If so, which one does it point to?" Nature points in its design to the same moral reality that all of the great moral teachers have seen an understood to varying degrees of clarity. Do you really think it is a coincidence that all the great moral teachers (by the light of their own cultures) have tended to be broadly in agreement ? That Aristotle, Jesus, Confucius and others all teach broadly similar things in terms of right and wrong is strong evidence that they are grasping a universal moral reality.Jason Rennie
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
Mike 1962, J. Budziszewski argues for the Ten Commandments--it's worth the read for those predisposed positively. Courage is the rarest of virtues and the most valued—have you ever heard of a culture that exalts cowardice? A lie is a lie is a lie—cultures differ in how much they will tolerate—they die when that’s all they tolerate. There are the fruits of morality in the here and now. Just observe those ethnic groups that have been encouraged to seek an alternative morality. Morality matters if you haven’t given up hope for the afterlife. If you have then nothing matters—just read ?????.Rude
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT
Jason writes in response to a previous comment: “My point is that some (not all obviously or there would be no new religions!) of the moral codes that we all think are worthy and valid (and their justifications) existed centuries before Jesus” Of course they did. This is not really a surprise though. All great moral teachers teach the same things and remind us of what is already known. It is the innovators that need to be watched out for. Although this reality is well known to Natural Law thinkers for centuries, and I don’t know why you think it is such a significant revelation or why you think it is much of an argument. Exactly. There is one and only one moral code. There is no “Christian Moral Code” in the sense of a moral code that is uniquely Christian. Jesus’ ethical teachings were sublime, but they were not what made his message unique. Christianity’s distinctiveness is theological, not ethical.BarryA
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT
"Let me ask you a question: was it an evil thing for Yahweh to send the Assyrian army to inflict a slaughter on Israel, esp given that a good many innocent children would have been murdered, raped, and otherwise mistreated?" Actually the answer to the question is, no it was not evil. There is quite a bit of background to be gone into to understand the circumstances , have a read of http://christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html to get a feel for some of the background that you are likely missing in judging the event reasonably.Jason Rennie
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
Rude: "It’s intuitive, as has been observed here already, inasmuch as everyone behaves as though good and bad are part of objective reality. " That's were I think Lewis's argument is correct: that no objective morality exists, but that (most) humans have a moral sense *at all* (regardless of the particulars) is the hint that it has a transcendent basis. It's when you get to the moral particulars is where there simply is no objective criterion that all "men of reason" at all times can agree on.mike1962
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT
Jason, I am quite familiar with the Natural Law tradition, but inevitably (as in all philosophical views) one runs into subjective brick walls. I agree that nature points to design, but I disagree that nature alone can point to any particular morality. If so, which one does it point to?mike1962
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
The argument for objective morality is both intuitive and logical. It’s intuitive, as has been observed here already, inasmuch as everyone behaves as though good and bad are part of objective reality. The most abject materialist is often the loudest mouthed moralist—passionate as to the goodness of his amoral stance. One would think that if we don’t want there to be an objective morality, then we’d just be quiet—for why would it be good if others agree that there is neither good nor bad? Yet if we do want to believe in an objective morality then passion is in order and there’s logic, as Barry A says, in that there are certain things that you can’t not know, just as J. Budziszewski argues. If, say, one subscribes to mathematical realism, then why not also to natural law? Anyone else see the connection between the two? Also I’ve found it heartening that nihilistic statements generally defy logic. “There is no truth,” is false if true, but, “There is truth,” is true if true.Rude
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
"Not trying to be a crank but, what objectively verifiable “transcendent moral code” can non-materialists point to?" Actually Mike there is a long natural law tradition that points to exactly that. All that is required is a recognition of the design inherent in the nature of a human being to recognize that such a natural law exists and reflects a transcendent reality.Jason Rennie
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
"My point is that some (not all obviously or there would be no new religions!) of the moral codes that we all think are worthy and valid (and their justifications) existed centuries before Jesus" Of course they did. This is not really a surprise though. All great moral teachers teach the same things and remind us of what is already known. It is the innovators that need to be watched out for. Although this reality is well known to Natural Law thinkers for centuries, and I don't know why you think it is such a significant revelation or why you think it is much of an argument.Jason Rennie
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
BarryA: "When it comes to affirming the statement “the holocaust was evil” there are two and only two kinds of people: 1. People who know it is true and therefore affirm it without reservation; and 2. people who know it is true and, for whatever reason, refuse to affirm it without reservation. Both groups of people know it is true." Barry, I must be frank and say I don't buy it. It's one of the few areas thata Lewis treads where I cannot agree. I am of the opinion that you are a Yahwist in some form. (Forgive me if that is a mistake.) Let me ask you a question: was it an evil thing for Yahweh to send the Assyrian army to inflict a slaughter on Israel, esp given that a good many innocent children would have been murdered, raped, and otherwise mistreated? I suspect the same thing in you (and me) that feels the Holocaust is "truly evil" would think the actions of the Assyrians to be truly evil. But on what basis can we claim such if Yahweh makes the rules?mike1962
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
"Jason, I’ve read Singer’s Rethinking Life and Death, Practical Ethics, and most of Writings on an Ethical Life. If you want to talk about Singer, I’m ready to go!" If you like. I did an interview with a guy a little while back for The Sci Phi Show (http://thesciphishow.com/?p=123). Did I misrepresent his view in your opinion in anyway ?Jason Rennie
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT
Bob Oh writes: 'Was the holocaust evil? Without a doubt.' [quoting me] How do you come to this conclusion? I agree with you, but I want to see what argument you use to get to it. IOW, how do you decide whether something is “truly evil”? Mike1962 writes: BarryA: “Since we know beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt that the holocaust was in fact truly evil” Hmm, must cry foul here. How do we in fact *know* that beyond any shadow of doubt? Duncan writes: "Isn’t the point of this whole thread that nothing is “self-evidently” true? What is the mechanism / route by which you have concluded the holocaust was ‘truly evil’? No-one is going to disagree with your conclusion (at least, I don’t imagine they are – although Stanton Rockwell’s point at 46 is pertinent), but you need to be able to justify it, please." All of you are asking me to “see through” a first principle. This is what C.S. Lewis said about that (as has already been alluded to earlier) in the Abolition of Man. “You cannot go on ‘seeing through’ things for ever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to ‘see through’ first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To ‘see through’ all things is the same as not to see.” There are certain things, as the saying goes, that you can’t not know. That the murder of millions of innocent victims is evil is one such thing. You’ve asked me to argue for a first principle. I will not for the simple reason that I cannot and neither can anyone else. When it comes to affirming the statement “the holocaust was evil” there are two and only two kinds of people: 1. People who know it is true and therefore affirm it without reservation; and 2. people who know it is true and, for whatever reason, refuse to affirm it without reservation. Both groups of people know it is true. Duncan, in particular, I must caution you. What Lewis is saying in the quote above is that if nothing is self evidently true, then nothing is true. Since we know that some things are true (setting aside useless radical Cartesian skepticism), then as a corollary we know that some things must be self-evidently true. There are first principles. Can we “demonstrate” first principles? No. But that does not make them any less true. As Brute said, we know they are true without necessarily being able to say why we know that. Blaise Pascal would say, “The heart has reasons that reason does not know.” BarryA
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
off topic: National Geographic apparently has a story about how life might have come from mars via frozen rocks or something. I may be overly cynical, but it seems like a move towards shoring up the flagging origin of life project by pushing it further into the past.Collin
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
Paul Giem: "You are suggesting that you have reason to believe that the Holocaust was not, in fact, truly evil?" No, I am not suggesting anything regarding my view. I'm asking an epistemological question. Clumsey Brute: "So, do you agree that slavery is objectively wrong?" How could I know such a thing?mike1962
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT
mike1962, Let me give you my "clarified" version that I wrote for getawitness: 1) Slavery is objectively wrong only if there is an objective Moral Law. 2) Slavery is objectively wrong. 3) Therefore, there is an objective Moral Law. Now, you ask: "How do you determine what is really wrong objectively?" I don't think we have to have an exhaustive epistemological account of how we come to know something before we can know it. I don't think I need to explain how we know premise 2 for me to be justified in claiming premise 2. I don't know HOW we know it. But it does not follow that we do not know it. So, do you agree that slavery is objectively wrong?Clumsy Brute
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
mike 1962, you say, "Hmm, must cry foul here. How do we in fact *know* that beyond any shadow of doubt?" You are suggesting that you have reason to believe that the Holocaust was not, in fact, truly evil?Paul Giem
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
Quoth Pat Robertson:
Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again.
Stanton Rockwell
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
Today was a great day getting out of class early! I figured I would get homework done, but wanted to see if any of the same people commenting from last night were still commenting... Not to be rude, but don't some of you guys have jobs, or go to college (maybe I should also invoke High school or even jounior high)? Sometimes I like to immagine these athiest hard at work trying to conjure anything no matter how off topic it is! It is rather amusing! Keep posting these great articles! It gets me behind in school, but its almost worth it!gore
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
Collin: "I enjoyed Lewis’s essay, Men Without Chests." Yes, that's a good one. I believe it is also a chapter from his book "The Abolition of Man," which is one of the best defenses of Natural Law that I know of. I highly recommend it.Clumsy Brute
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
BarryA Isn’t the point of this whole thread that nothing is “self-evidently” true? What is the mechanism / route by which you have concluded the holocaust was ‘truly evil’? No-one is going to disagree with your conclusion (at least, I don’t imagine they are – although Stanton Rockwell’s point at 46 is pertinent), but you need to be able to justify it, please.duncan
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
Clumsy Brute, Thanks, I will look up Mere Christianity. I enjoyed Lewis's essay, Men Without Chests. He states (paraphrased) that if you see through everything, you see nothing. And men without chests connect their brain to their loins and have no moral center to moderate the two.Collin
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
BarryA: "Since we know beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt that the holocaust was in fact truly evil" Hmm, must cry foul here. How do we in fact *know* that beyond any shadow of doubt?mike1962
November 13, 2007
November
11
Nov
13
13
2007
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
1 5 6 7 8 9

Leave a Reply